Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along.
"Because your question is not pertinent. They are territories not states. Run along."
roflmao, you truly are a stupid ass.
They are STILL UNDER US JURISDICTION, are they not?
They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:
"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that
birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship.
Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998);
Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998);
Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).
2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."
Id. at 1453 & n. 8;
see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's
Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19;
Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The
Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland.
Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;
Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com
Paddy is the one with the facts:
They are not in the United States. Read this and you can stop being a stupid ass:
"Nolos asserts that he derives United States citizenship from his parents, who he claims became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory. We have not previously decided this question. However, the Second, Third and Ninth Circuits have held that
birth in the Philippines at a time when the country was a territory of the United States does not constitute birth "in the United States" under the Citizenship Clause, and thus did not give rise to United States citizenship.
Lacap v. INS, 138 F.3d 518, 518-19 (3d Cir.1998);
Valmonte v. INS,136 F.3d 914, 915-21 (2d Cir.1998);
Rabang v. INS,35 F.3d 1449, 1450-54 (9th Cir.1994).
2 The courts of appeals explained that the term "United States" as it is used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not, without more, include "United States territories simply because the territories [were] `subject to the jurisdiction' or `within the dominion' of the United States."
Id. at 1453 & n. 8;
see also Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 920. In reaching their holdings, the courts found guidance from the Supreme Court's
Insular Cases jurisprudence on the territorial scope of the term "the United States" as used in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918-19;
Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452. The
Insular Caseswere a series of Supreme Court decisions that dealt with various challenges to duties on shipments from Puerto Rico to the United States mainland.
Rabang, 35 F.3d at 1452;
Valmonte, 136 F.3d at 918."
NOLOS v. HOLDER | Leagle.com
